![]() |
|||||||
![]() |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
November 28, 2004
winning developers
In the early days of this blog, I talked about improving the semweb's "whirlpool rap", stressing that we need a clearer way to talk about it to non-technical types. Since then, I've learned there's an even greater challenge: convincing developers that RDF and the Semantic Web are genuinely worth the training time required before they pigeonhole it and write it off as hype. Choosing tech is critical for software developers and managers. In the last twenty-four years of wading through languages, API's, platforms, and design approaches, I've learned to bet on established winners because there's no more costly mistake than choosing tech that later (or sooner) dies on the vine. Picking the wrong tech can mean wasting months of personal time learning something that won't be used later, either because it's not a marketable skill or because a better approach is found. For companies, picking the wrong tech can really suck, and it keeps on sucking, since new tech means a lack of qualified developers, a need to have them "learn on your dime", and long-term maintenance concerns ... "Will we be able to find qualified developers in the future if the current team disappears?" To me, it's more important that I can find and replace developers and not have to pay for training, ramp-up time, and course corrections. I just don't like gambling on new tech. So how do we managers choose tech intelligently? What crystal ball can we use? One approach is to stick with clear winners. When I rummage through the software section at bookstores, my goal is usually to take the temperature of what's selling, not to find some nifty new thing to learn. If I see five books on Struts, I know I'll have an easier time finding Struts developers. New tech appears on my horizon as the one solo book on the shelf ... AspectJ, for example. In a month or more, I may see three more AspectJ books. I watch these trends, and they're usually pretty accurate. That said, I've yet to see a single RDF book at a local bookstore, and we're betting our self-funded year long project on RDF and the Semantic web. So why are we using RDF? Would we use it again? These are the questions! |
About Me Contact Me making money musings process publicity semantic web software give status daily protect your flow fool your inertia warm up your brain log it and leave it don't break the box sharing hats circumstance arising first steps smilla RDF Intro Angela Talk: a semweb introduction W3C Semantic Web Original Road Map SciAm Article SemanticWeb.org RDF Resource Guide SchemaWeb SUMO Full Article Index July 2010 May 2010 January 2010 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 August 2008 June 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 2007 October 2007 March 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 August 2005 July 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 link to this site
![]()
|
||||||
![]() |
|||||||
|
"Big Fractal Tangle" is a phrase used by Tim Berners-Lee at ISWC 2003
to describe his vision of the Semantic Web (used with permission) "Tidepool" and "Storymill" are trademarks of Immuexa Corporation. Website design copyright © 2003-2004 by Immuexa. |
|||||||